Now that we have a lot more characters and rounds we can get into real battle I suppose. I thank my opponent for accepting the challenge and I will continue from his previous 13 rebuttals on his 13 arguments.

1. My opponent is tossing about this term "Complete biological theory". What is this I have to ask? Evolution is a theory that discusses, as I had previously defined, changes of frequency in the genetic pool of populations. Chemistry does not have a "complete chemical theory". Nor does architecture, physics, etc.

2. I will provide a source for genetic duplication ^1, and a source for point mutations changing amino acids ^2.

3. Those experiments are not looking for "macro-evolution" they are looking for evidence of evolution period. They did find such things i.e. the E. Coli experiment I previously mentioned in which a bacteria previously unable to consume citrate mutated and exploded in population as a result ^3. I don't think that you understand how much time it does take for these things to occur. We remained bacteria for about a 2 billion years according to the history of life ^4.

4. Where is the source saying that this had to occur within a few million years? Different chemical make you say? Here is a scientific article discuss the change ^5 but to summarize, both require the similar genetic expressions and in one case the same genetic expression NCAM but in different manners.

5. I do apologize for "cheating" as my opponent accuses me. We were limited but now that we no longer are lets look at some fossils. My opponent, with NO source called Lucy a chimpanzee. As I said its fascinating that people who deny evolution parrot this and when presented with evidence ignore it or attempt to interpret it when they do not have the trained eyes that people who have spent years studying this. Here then is a comprehensive list (with sources cited) of transitional fossils for many different phyla. ^6

6. Surprisingly it has not been under as much pressure. This is in fact an amazing thing to note in biology. Animals in the ocean are subjected to FAR less selection pressure because their environment does not change as much. Which is why going into environments such as caves or the deep sea is like looking into history itself, with creatures subjected to SUCH low environmental pressure that they resemble their ancestors from millions of years ago. Out here in the land though we are subjected to an incredibly dynamic environment that we as stated in the "Red Queen Hypothesis" have to run twice as fast just to stay in place.

7. I did not claim species evolve from "nothing" I was saying that ecological niches occur and they need to be filled. Ex. a tree unattainable to normal squirrels is an ecological niche. Therefore given enough time a squirrel will evolve that will fill that niche. Now for sources of the "Cambrian explosion" being much more of a "slow fuse". This is a selection from Donald Prothero's book discussing the Cambrian Explosion. ^7

8. I hate to say it but yes, I'm sure over the course of those MILLIONS of years there were a lot of bombardier beetles who were born with a mutation that resulted in their death. There were probably a ton of Giraffe deaths as a result of weaker heart valves. Such things are called deleterious mutations. Mutations that result in the death of the animal. Such mutations don't get factored into the gene pool because the offspring die before they can reproduce therefore contributing nothing. Those who got it right are the ones we see today.

9. Sexual selection has nothing to do with bestiality, I'm not sure where that came from honestly. Sexual selection is the selection of evolutionary traits based on the selection from the opposite sex. Such selection pressures result in complimentary traits.

10. My opponent did not define the second law of thermodynamics and its definition is here ^9. According to this source the second law of thermodynamics applies to ISOLATED systems in which no heat, work, or matter is exchanged across the boundry. So although the earth is a closed system, it is not an isolated system and therefore the second law does not apply.

11. Convergent evolution does not produce identical structures it produces structures that provide the same function but are based on what the species already had in its repertoire. A good example of convergent evolution is the bat and the bird. Both were subjected to evolutionary pressure that required flight, however the wings could not be more different and even the way they use these wings are vastly different. Another example is the whale and shark. Whales swim with the tails moving up and down, sharks with their tails side to side. Both needed to swim however both found their own ways.

12. I am going to quote and cite a more recent poll proving that 97% of scientist believe evolution has occurred either guided or not guided by a creator.

"Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public." ^10

13. Although my opponent has no source to say that evolutionist are saying we are increasing in species I will take his word for it. This is a matter of range. If we limit ourselves to a span of time from the the past million years. Yes I would say that the number of species is increasing. There have not been any mass extinctions that are littered through history in the past million years and there have been many ecological niches to fill. Now IF we increase the span of time to the entire HISTORY of life, then no we are not increasing. Through out the entire HISTORY of life we have lost 99.99% of species as a result of mass extinctions and time. In recent years I would be willing to say we have plenty of new species springing up!

I would like to make a note which is not an ad hominem attack but merely an observation. If you look at my opponents sources you will find that MOST are from creation website and even one is from a forum post by a creationist. This is not science, it is propaganda. I would not be willing to say that creationist can't be scientist because they can and there are some very smart ones I'm sure. But I will say that my opponent does not cite scientific papers as I have a couple of times (although I will say that even the wikipedia sources I cited I checked THEIR sources and found nothing but scientific papers). This is because what he is arguing is not science, its a montra that we hear. The classic arguments of second law of thermo dynamics and arguments about no transitional fossils are played out. They have been refuted over and over again so I urge you to vote PRO because we have the real science in our hands.

First I'm going to do some counter-rebuttal. Second, as I have a slightly-higher word count, I'll throw in four more arguments.

1. when Newton developed his theory of motion, it worked 99.99% of the time. But when Einstein came along and gave us his theories of relativity, that explained 100% of observations. That's why today we use Einstein's theories and not Newton's. By a complete biological theory, I mean one that accounts, as much as possible, for the creation of life-forms. Evolution claims to explain the creation of all life forms but one. Other theories, however, account for the creation of ALL life forms. Surely a theory that explains more phenomina is more likely to be correct than 2 theories explaining that same phenomina? [1]

2. I think you misread my argument. I'm saying that NEW amino acids cannot be created through mutation. That is, you can never create new genetic information, although I accept your sources saying that you can change old genetic information. But that genetic information had to come from somewhere![3]

3. While it's true single-celled organisms (not strictly "bacteria") sat around for a few billion years before us. Which only seeks to reinforce my point - for 2 billion years there was no evolution. Why not? Besides, my point here is that because macro-evolution has never been observed, it cannot be any more valid than any of the other theories that have never been observed, and is thus no more likely to be correct.

4. My source that you ask for is human evolution. Apparently we did it within 2 million years [2]. That's a whole lot of changes to happen during this time! Specifically with scales changing to hair, even if I were to accept it's not a big change (which it is), then you still need to change the digestive system at just the same moment so that the cells don't get the materials to build scales but the materials to build hair. What's the chance of both happening at the same time so frequently? Next to none!

5. Perhaps my opponent missed my source for Lucy - here it is again: http://www.straight-talk.net.... Funny you should mention a source that warns at the top that it is inaccurate. Almost all the links are stubs. Perhaps we should look at what the scientists are saying.[4]

6. My opponent believes ocean animals are not subjected to as much pressure as land animals. This only begs the question of why dolphins have evolved since the days of the dinosaurs, yet sharks have not.[5]

7. My opponent asserts mammals appeared to fill a niche. I'd like to challenge my opponent to name the reptilian ancestor of any modern mammal. He can't! Even Darwin was puzzled [6]. Wikipedia has a whole page full of lame attempts by scientists to explain the Cambrian explosion that have all since been discredited [7].

8. My opponent accepts that the complexity of some animals is irreducible. Therefore how did they evolve to their final state, if they could not breed to mutate their genes to a more complex state? And anyway, who'd WANT to breed with a beetle that has an ugly thing on their back that causes them to explode?

9. Bestiality = love of animals. My opponent makes a good case for why we breed with our own kind and not animals (sexual selection). He does not explain why "such selection pressures result in complimentary traits."

10. Here my opponent decides to change his definition of the second law of thermodynamics. Once it applied to closed systems, now to isolated. The problem is that ISOLATED SYSTEMS DO NOT EXIST [8]. However, as is noted in my source, the second law of thermodynamics should still provide a good approximation of what's going on in a closed system. In no event should exactly the opposite of the law be happening. I should also note that the information provided to an isolated system must be organized information to qualify. The majority scientific consensus is that raw solar energy is not organized information. [12]

11. My opponent does not refute my figure - the odds of the creation of half an eye in just two species are 10^60 against. Look at how many animals have fully formed eyes that are almost the same. The odds against that are staggering. I'm not talking about the fact that they all have eyes, because obviously they all have the need. I'm talking about the fact that they all have evolved fully functioning eyes already.

12. According to the same poll as my opponent cited, only 32% of the general public say they believe in Darwinism (natural evolution over time). The surveys were however, flawed. First, they were telephone surveys with a very high non-response rate. The total sample used to represent hundreds of millions of Americans was about 5000 people. The scientist survey was in a different form so there is the danger of survey-format effects and transferring findings. My point is that they were not statistically very accurate surveys.

13. Evolution explains how new species are created. However, global biodiversity is falling [9]. Surely it follows that at some point there must have been more species created than destroyed, because otherwise we necessitate creationism. My point here is - why the change?

14. My opponent does not believe evolution as a complete theory includes an account of how life began. Perhaps he should read http://en.wikipedia.org...

15. My opponent questions my sources. He ignores those sources of mine which ARE perfectly valid even by his definition. He also ignores the fact that many of my sources have links to more academic papers on the subject. Most were written by college grads. Many of the same arguments have, however, been also written by top professors with multiple patents and many years of practical biological research. A collection of their writings is found here: http://www.icr.org... - I'll try to use them and Wikipedia from now on, you'll find every one of the same arguments made by top professors, believe me that I did bother to search the site and find all of my past arguments made in research papers.

Now for 4 all-new points:

1. The fact that our world is so well set up for life generally points to the existence of a divine guiding hand in the creation and formation of life as we know it today. This is counter to the strictly agnostic view of evolution that my opponent appears to have adopted [10].

2. My opponent hopes I don't know chemistry [11]. In fact, every single cell depends on chirality, yet chirality does not work in cells. Therefore cells cannot have originally come about as a chemical process.

3. If evolution were true, we'd expect to see vestigial organs in the birthing process. As a matter of fact, we don't. [12]

4. There is no known mechanism that allows mutations to happen. Yeah, sure, there are several theories. But each has only begged more questions and there is not yet a complete answer. This is in contrast with opposing theories with fully worked-out mechanisms. The theory of evolution is thus not yet a complete theory. [summary in 12][mostly in 13]

As I stated in my very first speech, evolution does not qualify as real science any more than any other theory of where species come from. I'm an atheist and a skeptic, but I refuse to blindly believe in a theory that is unable to back up the many assertions it makes. That's why I'm advocating your CON vote, against an incomplete, unscientific and plain wrong theory.

1. This argument has become invalid. Science is not only based on parsimony, its based on evidence. If a theory that requires two explanations has more evidence for it, we take it over a theory that that explains all but has no evidence for it. I can come up with a ridiculous overarching theory that explains 100% of if the facts but if the evidence does not point toward it we don't accept it. This argument ends up begging the question that we are already arguing, does the theory have enough evidence to make it valid.
2. These articles do not just say that we change the DNA. What we do here is create more and then change the more, creating NEW genetic information. Lets make an analogy, I have an apple. I then replicate this apple and now i have, two apples. Then I stick my apple in a machine that turns it into an orange. Where I previously had an apple, I now have an apple and an orange. That is new information if I have ever seen it.
3. Historical sciences look back into things that haven't been observed. By this argument of observation can we say that George Washington never existed? He certainly was not observed by anybody alive at the time. And as for remaining a bacteria for 2 billion years, yes there was evolution, but it was not just the evolution you want to see. Changes occurred in small ways, absorbing the mitochondria etc. The argument is about evidence. Historical science is based on evidence and ultimately thats what we have to debate and are ALREADY debating.
4. I think that the most difficult thing for us to understand is deep time. Two million years is not a short period of time. With strong enough selection pressure massive changes can and did occur in two million years. It seems that another problem here is understanding the problem of incipient stages. Let me give an example when it comes to wing evolution. People don't understand how wings could have evolved. You need hollow bones, feathers, the right anatomical structures. All these mutations and adaptations were VERY unlikely to all have occurred together for the purpose of flying however, each adaptation did not occur for the PURPOSE of flying. Evolution is blind and has no "goal" in sight. It does what it has to do for the individual only. Therefore a bird with feathers but no hollow bones was not a "badly evolved bird", it was a well evolved something else. For example its wings have been believed to have been evolved as thermoregulators and later got used for flight (1). So a digestive track that changed to develop scales was not for the purpose of developing scales because scales was not the "goal". Later however, it got co opted to be used to develop scales.
5. My opponent focused on Lucy as a transitional fossil from humans and their ancestors but ignores a large comprehensive list of fossils that indicate intermediary traits between ancestors and modern animals. Calling the links stubs does not change the fact that these fossils were found and based on anatomy alone indicate transitions.
6. That is because dolphins were originally LAND animals that evolved back into the sea. Sharks however have always been in the ocean (2).
7. Yes I can, in fact a whole family of animals called the Synapsids (3). As for the Cambrian Explosion which I have already referenced was not an explosion but merely a slow fuse. Its absolutely possible that we don't know EVERYTHING about it yet. We have a lot of good theories and some theories have more evidence than others. However, its not enough to say "We don't know everything therefore it didn't happen". Science is all about being comfortable saying "I don't know" and then going out and finding an explanation. This is often called the argument from personal incredulity. My opponent simply can't understand how it occurred therefore he says with authority it didn't occur. Its an arrogant argument and the fact is there are smarter people than both of us who understand it and will find an explanation.
8. I'd like to point out that I did not accept that animals are "irreducible". What I conceded was that some animals would die as a result of mutations that are deleterious. Only SOME of these mutations are deleterious. Other mutations are beneficial resulting in the bombardier beetle with its incredible abilities. My opponent's question reveals a bit about his understanding of evolution. I'd like to point out a key word "Who'd". That shows a profound misunderstanding of evolution because there is no WHO, only nature and no purpose.
9. The pressures of selection for traits results in whats called selection sweeps (6). So selecting for a male that has good posture results in traits for woman that are attractive to men being swept up in the genetic pull. That man produces woman who are attractive to men as well as the posture that attracts men to women.
10. My opponent accused me of changing the definition, I did not change it, I corrected my definition. Whether or not an isolated system exist is not the question, the LAW is the question. The law specifies an ISOLATED system. The earth is NOT an isolated system therefore the law does not apply. Scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive, therefore they can only describes what normally happens based on the parameters set. If the parameters change the results can change. The solar energy is not organized information, its energy that is provided to a system with a built up self-organizing method (chlorophyll).
11. Your figure was taken from a forum post. I choose not to respond to it because I question the authority of the source. The number itself from the post was not cited correctly and therefore I can't determine if the number is valid. All species who have evolved eyes have eyes of varying complexity and different make up. The pressures that require it result in the evolution of it based on what was already available.
12. My opponent is 100% correct in saying that surveys in general are flawed. But this argument is pointless. Majority opinion and polls do not determine truth. In science, evidence is the final call. Once again this is already what we are arguing.
13. I'm not sure where the issue is here? Evolution creates new species, species go extinct. Where is the problem here? If the issue is the rate, sometimes the extinction rate changes. Global biodiversity is likely falling due to the human intervention. Before human intervention species were able to expand more quickly. Problem solved!
14. Perhaps my opponent should read the first sentence in what was cited. I will quote, "... but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began."
15. The validity of sources is important in debates. Those that were verified, I accept. With that this argument is settled.
1. This is whats called the hindsight bias. I will quote from Mark Twain "Man has been here 32,000 years. That it took a hundred million years to prepare the world for him is proof that that is what it was done for. I suppose it is. I dunno. If the Eiffel tower were now representing the world's age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man's share of that age; & anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for. I reckon they would. I dunno."
2. If my opponent didn't know chemistry, this argument would not have been as fun! Work is already being done and we have some progress on understanding the problem of chirality (4). My opponent is appealing to problems in the evolutionary theory that haven't been worked out. Finding an issue does not destroy a whole theory. The cumulative evidence that has been found greater out weighs the bits we don't know yet.
3/4. Vestigial organs exist, little toes, appendix. These are all remnants that had different functions originally but now are used for different purposes. As for mutation mechanisms read (5).
Sources are in

1. OK, my opponent has accepted 2 qualifiers for science: parsimony and evidence. My opponent concedes that parsimony for competing theories is superior. The evidence we argue about in the other points, but at least one of the two qualifiers certainly falls to CON because my opponent has conceded it.
2. I can accept (for the purpose of this argument) an apple tree changing to an orange bush, because the number of DNAcids is similar. New information is not created, but rather old information is changed. I'm talking about a little single-celled creature evolving into an apple tree, with many additional pairs of chromosomes. That's a lot of extra DNA. Science does not provide a mechanism for the creation of said additional DNA - your sources only point to how DNA changes, not is created.
3. If George Washington had not been observed (which he was, very clearly, by a fuming British government) then we would have no idea whether he was alive at the time. Remember our two qualifiers for science - parsimony and evidence. We've already worked out that there is better parsimony in other theories. Here my point, to repeat, is that there is no better evidence for evolution because just as many observations support evolution as do some other theory. Therefore evolution is no more likely to be correct.
4. Let's imagine a bird with wings used as thermoregulators. Along comes a predator. Bird tries to run away. Bird slowed by ridiculous thermoregulators hanging off the side which it can't move properly because it hasn't evolved the muscles yet. Bird caught and eaten. Surely this is a greater danger to early birds compared to getting a bit chilly? In New Zealand, we have a bird, the kiwi, that has (or so we are told) "un-evolved" the ability to fly. Why? Lack of predators! There is no evolutionary advantage to NOT flying, so why would these birds have responded to a lack of predators if evolution is "blind" as you say?
5. I have focused on Lucy and other poor examples of making up fossils so as to make humans appear evolved because you asked me to. I've given two sources that state that no transitional fossils have been found, written by respected paleontologists. You've given me one source for transitional fossils, one that says it is inaccurate, that links mostly to unverified sources (definition of a stub) and that anyone can edit (likely you for the purposes of winning this debate). How can your source be more accurate than mine?
6. The dolphins as land animals theory is about 10 years old now, and has not yet been given a chance to be properly investigated. I recommend voters check out my opponent's source, particularly the (supposed) bone diagrams of the Pakicetus. Then try to explain why the head looks exactly like this one: http://blogs.discovery.com... ! A case of misplaced fossils if I ever saw one!
7. My opponent agrees that there is no good explanation for the Cambrian explosion, and calls me arrogant (note the personal attack) because I dare even bring it up. Millions of scientists have been working for 150 years to find a good explanation. So far, none has arisen. The Cambrian explosion remains fatal to evolution.
8. A deleterious mutation is no genetic advantage. Thus evolution should not allow creatures with deleterious mutations to survive.
9. These so-called selection sweeps rely on members of the opposite sex WANTING to breed with the evolved creatures. But again, who'd want to breed with a semi-evolved creature? I certainly wouldn't want to go out with a girl with half a tail.
10. Two responses. First, unless the information is organized (as you conceded), the system (Earth) is isolated. Second, the law applies here as much as in any other approximated isolated system. Why should the Earth be the one great exception to the rule?
11. See this great page: http://www.wasdarwinright.com... - apparently bacteria mutate at a rate of 1:1000,000,000, meaning chance of 100 mutations is 1 against 1000,000,000^100=1^900. Actually you're right - the forum post was too much in evolution's favor!
12. People with better evidence than us who work in the scientific field surely would know better than us. My (more accurate) survey shows 40% of American doctors accept Darwinism, meaning 60% don't.
13. The issue is the rate. I cannot accept that the rate can all be put down to human intervention. It is much easier for a species to die than evolve.
14. No, but it does SUGGEST how life began. Perhaps my opponent should read more than just the first sentence.
15. (my new argument #1) that we are the end product of evolution, that may be the hindsight bias. But that evolution was able to function in the first place, that the tower was built at all, that is not hindsight bias.
16. "Finding an issue does not destroy a whole theory." - yes it does! Newton's theories were destroyed by Einstein finding one issue. Compare that to competing theories that have no issues.
17. As I have already shown in my sources, Vestigial organs do not exist. Your assertions will not destroy years of scientific research.
18. Your source does not give a mechanism, it gives a one-sentence explanation for how mutations happen in two ways. Remember, I support micro-evolution. Yes, I can breed with a tongue-rolling female and give my child the ability to tongue-roll. But there is no mechanism for macro-evolutionary mutation. No reason why that child will have a tail.

I am still very proud to be opposing this motion and will await my opponent's reply.

1. My opponent claims I've accepted 2 qualifiers, I did not. I will quote myself now "if the evidence does not point toward it we don't accept it." Therefore parsimony takes a back seat to evidence, putting evidence on a different level. Whatever competing theory my opponent is proposing (I have not seen any) is moot because the evidence points to evolution everywhere.
2. My opponent seems not to understand the idea of duplication. Its more than a change, entire genomes can be duplicated creating entire chromosomes (1). The process is such that old information is doubled and then changed resulting in new information.
3. My opponent is doing an excellent debate tactic, however, a very dishonest scientific tactic. He is refusing to elaborate on his theory and instead is simple snatching away the evidence for evolution. In debate it is better to attack your opponent's stance while divulging as little as you can of your own position so it may not be attacked. In science, you must present that "other theory" and the evidence for it.
4. Again, a profound misunderstanding of natural selection is here. If the bird had thermo-regulators that inhibited its movement, it would have died. Which is why the birds with thermo-regulators that DIDN'T inhibit movement survived to the next generation. Those who survived moved on to the next generation to breed and etc. etc. As for the Kiwi, I think it should be known that flying is a TREMENDOUS cost on the body's resources. It requires stores of energy, muscle, blood flow and nutrients. If there is no need for flying, ex. lack of predators or even if there are more dangerous predators in the sky than in the ground, then flying would be gone. All that extra energy flying could be spent foraging for food, mating and raising children.
5. I see we are spending time debating sources. Here then is 7 incredible transitional fossils marked in National Geographic. (2)
6. I do suggest the voters to look at my source, and then we can realize why my opponent is not a paleontologist or an anatomist. Once again I see an argument from personal incredulity, my opponent doesn't believe it therefore it is not true. This is not a good scientific argument.
7. Lets set the record straight, I was not claiming my opponent was arrogant but rather that his argument was arrogant. Good explanations with mounds of data have arisen but my opponent refuses to accept them and because of that believes that YOU should not accept it. That is a flawed argument. Here is some more data on the Cambrian Slow Fuse (3).
8. Thats absolutely correct! And that is a VITAL part of evolution. Those who don't adapt to the environment, don't reproduce. Those who do adapt, reproduce and change the genetic pool frequencies thus representing the beneficial mutation more.
9. Lets compare a naturally muscular male to a naturally weaker male. The muscular male has the genetic make up of increased muscles inherited from previous generations who were able to reproduce as a result of their increased muscles. I'd say women DO appreciate a naturally muscular male who received their muscles from their genetics. Thus we have attraction as a result of increased evolutionary adaptation. Here is a source of attraction as a result of increased fitness (4)
10. The earth is not an exception to the rule because as we have established the earth is not an isolated system leaving it outside of the rule. Energy does not need to be organized information (needs proper definition) for it to apply to the law of thermodynamics. Again this is all pointless because this argument devolves into an origin question. As I said the earth has a self organizing method that starts with chlorophyll taking raw solar energy and converting it into life. Where did chlorophyll come from? This all falls under the umbrella of origin science and not evolutionary science (after life began).
11. Here is a source explaining mutation rates through scientific experimentation making it perfectly possible. I'd also like to contend that an article from the respected Journal of Genetics, a peer reviewed scientific publication, is a better source than my opponent's.
12. Again my opponent is relying on majority opinion to do the arguing for him. But to make my contention here is my source (5).
13. Not accepting it is not an argument elaborate on how it can't be put down to human intervention.
14. How life began is not what we are debating, whether or not life evolved is the issue. We should focus on the issues titled in the debate.
15. This is not the argument my opponent first brought up. He claimed that the earth had to be designed because of the parameters were so narrowly set and now he is saying that evolution does not function in the real world. What is the issue here? The Earth's conditions are meant for life or that evolution can not function?
16. By this logic we should reject; germ theory, elasticity theory, Einstein's theory, and numerous other theories within the scientific field because each and everyone of those theories are as well confirmed as evolutionary theory and each and every one of them has issues that have not yet been worked out. EVIDENCE is what destroys a theory and I'm convinced we have not yet seen any evidence strong enough to disprove evolution.
17. As for this argument I urge you to read what is years of TRUE scientific research and not biblical propaganda as is littered all over my opponent's source. (7)
18. An explanation for how something occurs is a mechanism (6 Definition 2). Again macro evolution is micro evolution + time. There is no such thing Macro evolutionary mutations, just millions of micro evolutionary changes over long periods of time.

I urge everyone to read each of our sources carefully and consider the hard work done by scientist. I don't need to ask voters to vote PRO because when they read the data, they will do it anyway.

This time I'm not going to bombard voters with new information and thousands of sources. I'm just going to point out the logical contradictions at each stage of my opponent's case.

1. It is not my onus in this debate to present a competing theory. I'm simply showing that evolution is no more likely to be correct than the inverse vacuum fluctuation theory I made up a second ago. I'm actually going to accept, for the sake of argument, that parsimony takes a back seat to evidence, although you will note that this implies that where we have equal evidence for two theories parsimony is the valid way of choosing between them. As I have shown, and will continue to show, there is no evidence for either evolution or anything else. Thus a more parsimonious solution is more likely to be correct. My inverse vacuum fluctuation theory is more parsimonious by the way. Simply put, it states life came about in the opposite way to the universe. If you can disprove it, you can pretty much disprove creationism and many of the leading other alternative theories, so I challenge my opponent to pretend this is my model and try. Once again, for you the voters, remember that even if my opponent succeeds, that doesn't make evolution more correct so doesn't help his case at all.

2. Apparently in the process of duplication, new chromosomes are added. Which makes me wonder why all of the cells in my body have 23 pairs of chromosomes. If my opponent has cells with billions of chromosomes, I advise him to go to the local hospital immediately. No ad hominum attack intended. My simple question is this: we started out with only two chromosomes which were both really short. How did this increase in genetic information come about?

3. OK, so my opponent concedes here that he doesn't have a response to my point. All he says is that he wants more rebuttal against me. Once again, there is no onus on me to prove my position. I am the null hypothesis. I am peer reviewing your work and finding it flawed. This is science, science is not debates, it is someone proposing a theory and everyone else shouting "You're crazy!"

4. Half-wing-shaped thermoregulators do inhibit movement. Attach six large coats to either side of your body and go to the mall. Now you know what those prehistoric birds felt like. Now go to Jurassic Park and see how long you survive. As for the kiwi, if what you say is true, then why didn't native New Zealand eagles un-evolve likewise?

5. Your national geographic source names the Java man as one of the great finds of the century, despite having been long found out as a fraud. 5 of the 7 of the finds are from within the last 20 years so I doubt they would have had the same level of scrutiny as older finds which we now know are frauds. How can you claim this source as being more reliable than mine?

6. Yes, compare his source to my image. Particularly the head, remember that no complete half-dolphin skeleton has ever been found, so when they found a skull on land they assumed it had to be an early dolphin. Here my opponent makes a nice little ad hominum attack, saying I'm not a paleontologist so my argument must be false. Logically that's wrong.

7. I quote from my opponent's source's conclusion: "the underlying processes still remain surprisingly elusive". Evolution still does not explain the Cambrian explosion. To say that "oh, some scientist will work it out someday" as an argument is wrong, and that's not just because I think it's wrong.

8. Great! So deleterious creatures died. So why did not early giraffes die? Or early bombardier beetles? Oh that's right, it's because evolution DOESN'T EXIST!

9. OK, fitness may result in increased attractiveness. But what about having a half-formed third eye in the back of one's head? If that eye evolves it would be a serious advantage (360 vision), but no-one would go out with them.

10. Sorry, but the second law does not apply exclusively to origin science, unlike what my opponent would have you believe. It is a general rule that is applied to all systems. The more isolated they are, the more strongly it applies. At worst, the Earth is extremely isolated, so the opposite of the law should not be happening over the millions of years we have evolved. At best, the Earth is isolated and the opposite of the law should still not be happening. Whether I or my opponent are right on definitions, I'm still right on the argument.

11. Your source states that every single new polio virus has, on average, 3 mutations. So I guess I must have, like, 100 mutations, because I have that many more genetic materials. That makes me wonder why both my legs are alike - surely at this ridiculous mutation rate, at least one of my leg cells would mutate to the color blue or something.

12. My opponent concedes I have the majority on my side. Voters, side with the majority! Make the smart choice - less doctors support evolution than competing theories (see previous source).

13. No, I don't need to elaborate. You brought the argument and have not yet told us why the rate can be simply put down to human intervention. Then I will refute you.

14. The origin of life is as strongly related to evolution as mutation, yet my opponent refuses to debate it. Huh. Strange.

15. Life can form on Jupiter (in some strange form) but life cannot evolve on Jupiter. There simply is not enough energy for it to happen there. The opposite is true for Mercury. Does this clarify my case?

16. While perhaps I have not disproved evolution, my opponent has not proved evolution. Remember that to win this debate, my opponent needs to show why evolution is a better theory than all others. I simply need to stand here and successfully rebut his case.

17. Those are not vestigial organs, those are useless mutations. By vestigial organs I mean pre-birth. Don't worry, there are countless other theories that explain why there are apparently useless mutations (ie creationism=sin, my random theory from #1=chaos etc)

18. Macro evolutionary mutations are those that are a half-formed version of something greater. In themselves they are non-useful micro mutations. They don't happen. Half-tails don't appear.

1. This is correct and my opponent is pointing out what is called the either-or fallacy. This however, is not the argument I'm making. My argument is that my opponent is stating that his theory is more parsimonious therefore is more likely to be correct. My argument is that because evolution has more EVIDENCE, it is more correct. If we have settled that this contention only reverts us back to our original argument, then it is useless to continue this line of arguing.
2. The reason this occurs is because chromosomal duplication is not continued in the next generation unless it occurs in the gametes which ARE the next generation. Once again this increase in genetic information came about through the processes of duplication and mutation.
3. My opponent stated in round two argument three "there is no better evidence for evolution because just as many observations support evolution as some other theory". I can not rebut what has not been given. My opponent makes this statement but does not elaborate on WHAT this other theory is, and what evidence is supporting this other theory. In science you can't simply say you are wrong. In science you need to say "you are wrong AND this is what I think is happening". A good example is Lynn Margolis' proposition for symbiogenesis. She was opposed to the neo-darwinistic thought that organelles like mitochondria evolved in the cell. She did not just oppose it however, she proposed a reason for them being there, symbiogenesis. She did the research, found the evidence and now her theory is accepted. That is how real science works.
4. Ostrich's have wings and can run at speeds up to 45mph, I would say that those wings don't inhibit movement. The reason being that New Zealand eagles would NOT have benefited from losing flight where as the Kiwi did. Its all about ADAPTATION.
5. Its nice not to bombard the voters with sources, but you can't claim fraud and not provide the data. As for the others, they have been scrutinized and it is a result of their scrutiny that we find them being transitional fossils.
6. This is not an ad hominem attack, I was remarking to the voters that they should read what paleontologist say because expert opinion does matter. Example, if my car engine broke down and I asked a mechanic and the weird kid down the block what was wrong with it, which opinion should I value more? Obviously the mechanic because the mechanic has had extensive study in cars and their workings. Therefore if my opponent things that the head is not half dolphin, but a multitude of experts believe it is half-dolphin, I will side with the experts.
7. Evolution has explanations, they just don't satisfy my opponent. Its because the explanations don't satisfy my opponent he believes they are wrong. Scientist have explanations that are continuing to be refined. My opponent is engaging in what is called the "God of the Gaps argument" again. I urge my voters to understand that it is completely OK to not know everything, that is why we learn.
8. The key qualifier is that SOME Giraffes and SOME bombardier beetles died. NOT ALL. If all did die, my opponent would be right, they would be all gone. But early giraffes and beetles that were able to adapt to their evolutionary pressures survived and those are the ones we see today.
9. An eye on the back of one's head would come at a MUCH more serious cost that would out weigh its benefits. Energy would be wasted creating new blood vessels, supporting them, rewiring the brain, new nerve endings, new place for the occipital lobe etc. Therefore its much LESS costly to simply be alert and turn around which is what humans do! And women or men would be attracted to mates that were more alert and aware of their surroundings as opposed to dense ones who were one tracked and unaware.
10. My opponent once again ignores the self organizing method that the earth has developed. Chlorophyll uses the sun's energy, to convert into metabolic energy, which results in a cell growing. Evolution by natural selection begins with the first replicating molecule and with that we have complexity arising from simplicity. This argument of HOW the first one came about is an origin question and not under the prevue of evolution. Once again, evolution BEGINS with the FIRST replicating molecule. How that molecule came about is under the biochemical science of Origins and NOT evolution.
11. My opponent seems to have misunderstood the genetics. A mutation does not make one's leg blue. In fact MOST mutations are what is called silent mutations, mutations that result in no change in the cells production. There are even more mutations that result in deleterious effects, killing the cell (which happens a lot in the body, however, our body produces that the deaths are insignificant). A few are beneficial and that is where natural selection acts.
12. I will quote myself in round 3 "to make my CONTENTION here is my source." Check source five in round 3. Once again majority does not determine truth, in science evidence does. To remark on an earlier statement by my opponent, scientist do debate, a LOT.
13.
14. I will make my same statement again, evolution is the change in genetic frequencies in a population of replicating organisms. HOW the first replicating organism came about is a biochemical problem to be solved, not an evolutionary one and I am not versed in Origins Science.
15. So what? How is this an argument for evolution. The earth had the conditions necessary for life to begin, jupiter and mercury didn't. This does not clarify the case.
16. In science we present our theory and the evidence for it. Others will then present evidence of problems in the theory and present their own theory with evidence in their favor. I'm urge voters to realize that there has yet been strong enough evidence of problems in the theory that would result in the need of a new theory (which has yet to be elaborated on)
17. Those are not useless mutations, those are pre-existing evolutionary organs, tissues, appendages etc that PREVIOUSLY had function but is no longer used (which is the definition of a VESTIGIAL ORGAN). Some are now useless while others have been co-opted for new purposes. Please define what a "pre-birth vestigial organ" is.
18. My opponent is completely correct, HALF tails do not simply appear as a result of mutations. Instead what does occur is a mutation in the genome results in a little more tissue being placed at the end of the spine. This tissue then provides an advantage as both extra cushioning and weight balancing. Eventually those with this mutation out mate their competitors and become the normal (this is called a gene going to fixation). Now with this fixated gene another mutation occurs for more tissue. This process continues until we have a tail that can be used for balancing. An individual who's tails grew too large died because the cost of producing a larger tail outweighed its balancing benefits. However, in this population a mutation occurs resulting in a contracting motion for the tail. This continues to become selected and this process of SLOW and VERY SMALL changes resulting in larger changes. Eventually you go from no tail to a fully formed movable tail (macro evolution). The evolutionary process is a result of adaptations to fitness in the environment. Some would say, "a tail would be handy anyway" but evolution does not think the way we do. It does not think ahead. If there is no IMMEDIATE benefit, it does not evolve. Humans don't have tails because we have excellent hands. It would be a waste of energy and resources evolving a tail to pick up a coke can when we have perfectly good hands that can do that already. Evolution is a purposeless mechanism which no foresight, resulting in complexity from simplicity by simple solutions to simple problems. It truly is, the Blind Watchmaker.

I'd like to thank my opponent for continuing his case and will move on to our familiar 18 lines of argumentation. First, however, I'd like to thank my opponent for resigning. For in point #16 he notes: "there has yet been strong enough evidence of problems in the theory that would result in the need of a new theory"! In other words, evolution is an inadequite theory. Now, I seem to remember this topic being "Evolution: True?" If evolution is inadequite, as my opponent states, then it is not true and some other theory (I don't know which one, but that's not important) is true.

1 and 3. There is no evidence for either evolution or anything else. Since the evidence is equal, we must turn to parsimony as my opponent agrees. I have already provided many sources, particularly in the preceding debate, about there being no evidence for evolution. I'd like to cite Prof. DMS Watson, a staunch evolutionist writing a peer-reviewed article later published in Nature, in 1929. He said: "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Nobody has ever found a fossil in pre-Cambrian rock (http://www.icr.org...). Later fossils are all disputed, by the many various sources I have cited already. Put it this way - evolution is just a theory, and not a particularly complete or coherent one. "The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model." (http://www.icr.org...)

2. "Once again this increase in genetic information came about through the processes of duplication and mutation." - there is nothing in the processes of duplication (making a replicate of existing data) and mutation (changing existing data) that explains increasing existing data. All mutation does is create anagrams. All duplication does is write the word out on another sheet of paper. This process cannot add letters to the same sheet of paper. So again, how is it that the first organisms had only one pair of chromosomes when we have dozens today? What process added the chromosomes?

3. In addition to what I say for point #1 above, again, I don't need to provide another theory. This is my opponent's way of dodging the issue of observation, which I respectfully ask he comes back to. My lack of a competing theory is not connected to observation at all. But for the sake of argument, I'll reaffirm that my official theory that I advocate is the inverse vacuum fluctuation model. Even if my opponent destroys it, I still win the debate. It's not dishonest to debate for-and-against a model as opposed to for-and-for, like my opponent asserts (that's why we're called pro and con).

4. Why would the eagle not lose the same energy while flying and thus not have the same disadvantage? Please explain this argument further. Think about an ostrich without wings to get an idea of how much faster an ostrich could be. 45kmph is slower than a house cat (http://www.cute-cat.net...). Capitalizing buzzwords (poor grammar, by the way) will not win you this argument.

5. The reason I did not provide a source for the Java man's fraud is that I have already done so, in the last debate. It's on numerous websites written by top scientists and researchers - ICR has a long, technical article, but I prefer http://creation.com...

6. Paleontologists, without a DNA sample, are guessing just as much as you or I are. Yes, perhaps they look at bones a lot more, but they are just guessing that dolphins once walked on land. Personally, I think that any sane voter comparing both images would see remarkable similarities between the lizard and prehistoric dolphin skull. Believe me, there are experts who agree it's a fraud too. I'm glad I discovered ICR!

7. No, my dear voters, it's not OK to say "My theory is always right even though it doesn't yet explain the most significant event." It only takes one outlier to break the rule. The Cambrian explosion is one hell of an outlier.

8. My opponent asserts that some giraffes could withstand the extra blood pressure on the head without having evolved systems to deal with this. Same with the bombardier beetle. My response is one word long - how?

9. "Energy would be wasted creating new blood vessels, supporting them, rewiring the brain, new nerve endings, new place for the occipital lobe..." hmmm - now we're talking! What about when wings got evolved? New blood vessels and supports, brains rewired, nerve endings and muscles created - yet the bird cannot even fly! Please, voters, see through this hypocritical argument.

10. Once you have created life, for that life to increase in complexity violates the second law. That is why the second law does not just apply to origin science. I wish my opponent would actually argue that point rather than saying I'm talking about something different.

11. Given the trillions of mutations that have happened in my body, the trillions that have happened in yours, in Barack Obama's, in Louis Theroux's, in Justin Bieber's or any of the other billions of humans now living, or any of the other humans now dead - at the mutation rate, the chance that a leg cell and all of its children does not mutate to blue or some other silly-looking color and not have enough children to be visible (like you suggest happens all the time) is statistically pretty much impossible (chance of null hypothesis < 0.01). This is just another way evolution relies on an ignorant, blind, impossible assumption.

12. The poll you cite asks which is preferable: intelligent design or evolution? That's not what we're interested in. This debate is about whether evolution is correct. My polls suggest most physicians think not.

13. I'll clarify my statement here: maybe we have helped the process, but there simply is not enough mutation going on to explain either the natural or our beefed-up artificial rate. I doubt that the natural rate is so low as to be lower than the marginal rate. See here: http://www.icr.org...

14. Just because you don't know origin science doesn't mean my arguments for it can be ignored. Again, evolution and origin science are inexplicably linked. One suggests the other, just as evolution suggests mutation.

15. Earth did, nobody else did. That's an argument against evolution because it violates the Copernicus principle, suggesting some force positioned the Earth and by extension allowed life to happen, but did not allow life to evolve in and of itself. That was a natural process. Really this argument and the last one are arguments giving the same conclusion as argument #1.

16. Dealt with above.

17. Vestigial organs are those that appear because of birthing and growth DNA not matching body DNA, for instance it was once alleged that very young human fetuses have tails (now known to be false). However, these do not appear, despite evolution necessarily predicting them (see my source). My opponent's idea of vestigial organs (what I'd call useless mutations) do exist, but do not prove evolution.

18. Half ears do also not appear. Half eyes are totally useless. Half tails are not balancing like my opponent thinks because they do not have sufficient weight behind them to achieve that effect. Also most animals do not fall backwards so the cushioning is useless too.

I'm going to quote my self here because my opponent seems to think I conceded the debate. I will be placing emphasis on where my opponent is likely to have misunderstood my statement. "...there has yet been strong enough EVIDENCE OF PROBLEMS in the theory...". Translating this statement there is no evidence of problems hence there is no problems. If there is no problems with the theory then the theory can be accepted as provisionally true.
1. The first sentence in my opponent's contention here is the exact argument we are already having. Is there evidence for evolution? My opponent says no, I say yes, lets return to the debate. I need to also point out that scientist have been known to be human beings. Therefore, scientist can make NON-scientific statements. What my opponent quoted is a NON-scientific statement which is not evidence for anything. As for fossils found in the pre-cambrian, there have been fossils found. Fossils have been found and dated through the pre-cambrian. Its as simple as that, http://www.fossilmuseum.net....
2. My opponent doesn't seem to understand the coding of genes. Yes DNA is a string of four letters. However, if you change those letters new amino acids will be produced. Example, threonine is an amino acid that is coded by either ACU, ACA, ACC or ACG. Lets assume ACA is coded in the genome. A point mutation occurs resulting in the middle nucleic acid being changed from a cytosine (C) to an adenine (A). Now we have the codon AAA. This codon codes for Lysine, a new amino acid! New information! I will illustrate for the voters using actual genetics language to show how new information can arise.

ACUACCACA = Threonine, threonine, threonine
The genetic information then duplicates (of which I have already shown evidence of it occurring)
ACUACCACAACUACCACA = Threonine x6
Now a single point mutation occurs
ACUACCACAACUACCAAA = Threonine x5, lysine

Voters, where you started with three threonines, you now have 5 threonines and one lysine. That is NEW genetic information. It can be extrapolated (which has previously been sourced) to entire GENOMES and chromosomes duplicating and changing into new information.
3. Voters this is not a dodge, this is science. If my opponent wants to attack evolution, he will have to debate in the realm which it resides in, science. In science you need to debate in a for-and-for model because simple saying there is a Gap in knowledge does not provide the scientific community with anything to test. In sciences statements and contentions need to be testable. Any statements or contentions my opponent has brought up that fall under that category have been and will continue to be disproved.
4. Buzzwords are important because they draw the voter's attention to key phrase (considering it textual highlighting). Eagles are likely to have other selective pressures to maintain the wings, i.e. distance flying, speed, other prey in the sky etc. My opponent is attempting us to assume under his statement that an ostrich without wings is faster? Voters, this is sheer speculation and no evidence against the theory of evolution.
5. http://www.talkorigins.org... a list of human transitional fossils with cited sources in peer reviewed scientific journals.
6. I see my opponent is putting little faith in paleontologist. They don't just look at bones more than the two of us. Voters they spend at the VERY least studying the anatomy of hundred upon hundreds of animals, dating methods, chemical make up of bones etc. Paleontologist don't just look at bones they spend their lives studying them scientifically which is certainly more than I can say for myself and I am assuming my opponent as well. I'm also going to have to call my opponent out and ask for his sources claiming fraud.
7. Exactly how does my opponent justify calling the "Cambrian Slow Fuse" the most significant event in evolutionary history? I see no justification for this. Once again, in an earlier source voters can see explanations that are being proposed and evidence for those explanations. I do need to make the correction however on the confusion of terms here. The Cambrian slow fuse breaks no "rules" (needs definition). Scientific theories are DESCRIPTIVE and not prescriptive. These theories can't be "broken" because they are adaptive. When data comes in it is included into the theory and where there once was a gap, it has been filled. Voters, this gap is already being filled.
8. Giraffes evolved systems to withstand the extra blood pressure to the head. This is essentially my opponent's first sentence corrected. The current system the giraffe has is evidence for its evolutionary history.
9. I have already explained, the wing did not originally evolve for flight, it was later co-opted for flight. It is indeed frustrating re-iterating arguments but again, evolution has no PURPOSE. It does not set aside the materials so that it will fly. It uses everything immediately. Please see my previous explanation of the "Problem of Incipient Stages"
10. Now we have reached a point of disagreement on how the second law applies to EVOLUTION and not origin science. With energy input from the sun, molecules that replicate are being sufficiently supplied with energy for metabolism. Evolution with natural selection takes hold along with genetic material being produced (see argument 10 for genetic information increasing). With genetic information increasing and selection acting on this new system we have increased complexity rising out of chaos.
11. My opponent fails to understand how small these mutations are. A silent mutation and synonymous mutation results in no effects. Deleterious mutations are weeded out. The "mutation to turn your leg blue" does NOT exist. What does exist is minute changes that over 3.5 billion years have resulted in the biodiversity we see today. It is under the ignorant, blind and impossible assumption that mutations result in missing or color changes in entire appendages that makes my opponents argument invalid.
12. I will concede this argument as I have made the point multiple times; polls do not determine truth in science, evidence does. If my opponent continues to rely on majority opinion in a scientific debate, I only hope the voters understand the true process of science and vote Pro.
13. Doubt is not a scientific argument. If you read my opponent's source it does not inherently provide any information on the natural rate of extinction versus speciation. Speciation rates are debate as well as the natural rates of extinction. The data we know now is that species are dropping in the last century, as my opponent granted helped by human intervention. From there the data points neither towards PRO or CON and therefore the argument becomes invalid.
14. Evolution does not suggest mutation. Mutation exist regardless of any other science because there is documented evidence for it. Genetics tells us mutations exist, they are not hanging on the coat tails. The same can be applied to evolution. Evolution occurred, it does not hang on the coat tails of Origins science. Evolution as a theory stands on its own merit. Whatever occurred to create life we do not know, what we do know is that life evolved.
15. Again, this is hindsight bias. The earth has the right parameters and therefore it was designed? Not necessarily and the truth is that neither PRO nor CON knows how the earth achieved its parameters and is therefore not evidence for either side.
17. As has been discussed, entire organs do not result from "useless mutations". An appendix is not the result of a mutation. It is a result of a lack of need of a once useful organ. As for babies with tails, they have the genetic capacity for a tail but in most cases that gene is silenced. In some cases (rarely) babies are born with the gene turned on and are bone with a fully functioning tail (1)
Please see comments

I'd like to thank my opponent for the debate. It's been fun. I'll keep this short since the debate has been so long already. If you read nothing else of the debate, read this.

I've highlighted several problems with evolutionary theory. The pointer to chirality for instance, or the Cambrian explosion. These are significant holes in the theory that my opponent has no easy answers to. Sure, he can say the theory will adjust to accommodate these things, and some day a scientist might write some theory the theory that does. But then that theory is no longer evolution. It is something else. Why not just follow the path of the answers we have available? I ask the voters to turn their attention to the bombardier beetle. For thousands of years bombardier beetles destroyed themselves according to the theory of evolution, before they evolved a safety mechanism. And yet the bombardier beetle did not die out. A similar case can be made for giraffes - who, I might add, survive not through some magic blood-pressure management system but through their neck being at just the right proportion for gravity to do it for them.

One could be forgiven for thinking that we are out in the ocean. What about when I said new genes are not created? My opponent divulged into the great red herring of how amino acids are changed from one type to another. Or with respect for the second law of thermodynamics? My opponent gives a good explanation of how it is possible. He does not address the fact that it is in violation of the law, so therefore evolution must be an exception.

Then my opponent forgot how to test a theory. I think textbooks simplify this too much - "it's creationism or evolution", "it's the big bang or steady-state" and so on and so forth. In reality, a whole bunch of scientists are paid by universities to produce research. This research constitutes of a test hypothesis and a null hypothesis. The scientist must attempt to show the test hypothesis is true because otherwise the research is wasted. After repeated trials, perhaps the scientist will find strong evidence against the null. I however, have shown even stronger evidence for the null. Therefore the null is more likely to be true. That's how science really works! That's why most universities make stage-1 science students take statistics papers. That's why casting doubt on a theory makes it less scientifically plausible.

My opponent then decided to accept the expert opinion of a select few scientists as being more valid than our judgment (paleontologists), but went on to say that our opinion was just as valid as any other opinion (surveys). That's just one example of a very inconsistent argument. He says that there will never be a mutation to make one's leg blue as too many genes would need to change, but then is happy to admit scales can change to feathers with only a few very simple mutations. My opponent says evolution does not suggest mutation, and then is happy to debate mutation in point #2 - all as an excuse to opt out of debating one of the most powerful attacks on evolution. He says that eagles had very good reasons to not evolve, but then does not state why the same factors do not apply to kiwis.

There were two other attacks I put on the table. First, I noted the sparse fossil record with a multitude of missing links. My opponent has focused on human evolution, and given long lists from multiple researchers of transitional "human" fossils. He does not acknowledge my sources pointing out that every last one of them is a fraud. He dismisses my sources as biblical propaganda. In the same vein, I could label all his sources as liberal propaganda. Therefore his counter-argument is invalid. There are no known real human transitional fossils. Secondly I talked about speciation rates. I admit this argument is speculative, like my opponent asserts, but all the best simulations all point to the same inescapable conclusion - that even without human intervention, animals would die out faster than new animals are born. Surely this must count for something?

So now, I suggest that voters have another look through my 18 attacks and my opponent's lack of justifications for the evolution hypothesis. I don't suggest that voters follow my opponent's advice to vote on behalf of their own research, because then this is no longer a debate. If my opponent does not present the argument, he should not win. As I have shown, my opponent's responses have been inadequate, his justifications have been non-existent, and the moot must fall. Vote con.

As I no longer have a rebuttal I just wanted to make a small closing comment. My opponent has continued to provide arguments that have been irrelevant or invalid. The scientific arguments my opponent have presented have been only somewhat answered. More extensive answers can be seen in the scientific journals published by real scientist performing peer reviewed work. My opponent will make contention that I will not be allowed to rebut as the debate has ended but please let it be known. There is always an answer, and always a misunderstanding of the evolution theory. Only through education and dutiful research will you see what is the truth. Evolution is not an easy theory to understand. It takes years of research and dedication but when that research is completed you will come to the same theory that different scientist, in different fields, in different journals, different cultures, different countries and of different backgrounds, ethnicities and cultures have all found themselves in. That is the theory of evolution.

I want to apologize, I did not list my argument for point 13, so here is my argument.
According to my opponent's source in round one,

"During the last century, decreases in biodiversity have been increasingly observed"

What events have occurred in the last century that can result in the increasing loss of biodiversity? The answer is human expansion and development. Massive increases in human populations, human intervention in previously untouched environments, etc. I can go on and on about humanity's intervention in the last century resulting in destruction of environments. The fact is we just have to put two and two together here. Human expansion exploded in the last century and species rates have been falling in the last century.

Reasons for voting decision: We need a tie breaker. Larzs took the weaker case and relentlessly pounding away at flaws and poor arguments in Pro's case. As far as best sources Con used his sources better and Pro never attacked really questionable sources. Also I think Con was helping to train Pro, so he gets conduct as well.